their not saying its bad. their saying it makes no diffrence.

I think it has a lot to do with expectation.

To give you an example, a basketball player with a 20 ppg average would be considered good player, however if that person was Michael Jordan, people would be disappointed even though he still is a 'good player'.

Company like Bioware, Blizzard and Rockstar have reputations to uphold thanks to their past success. Like it or not, people just expect better.

Like DA:O I'll probably pick this up when it significantly reduces in price so probably at least a year or so before I play it.

Oh man that sucks so much, specially when I just started playing DA:O a week or so ago and I'm founding it a fantastic game, even with the silent protagonist and the cliched, way too simple plot at times.

I was happy when I heard about DA 2 and the way it added ME's system of choices with an actually alive protagonist, but then it comes these news. I don't mind the oversimplified combat at all (preferred immensely ME2 system to ME1's one, add a bit of weapon/armor customization like Crysis and it will be perfect), but scrapping dialog lines, reusing assets and coming with a bland story simply doesn't do it for me. Big timme bummer.

At least BioWar (supposedly) listen to it's fans all the time, so let's hope for better things at DA3. And ME3... Christ, I hope they don't fuck up that one.

1. You're wrong. I have played it.

2. You didn't understand the comment if you're thinking I judged the quality.

3. It was much less of an RPG than Mass Effect 1. So my point still stands.

Okay, look, I understand where you're coming from, I honestly do. But I have to respectfully disagree.

This has nothing to do with "scores" or what not. It's about the simplification of SEQUELS these days. The goal of developing a sequel is to improve it. Not take a step back and remove features which made the game so great, all just to try and appeal to a broad audience.

If they're trying to aim for such audiences, then they can develop a whole new IP tailored for broad appeal.

the 1up review describes a lot of shitty stuff, but back when they (Bioware/EA) said we would "fight like a Spartan" it was clear there couldn't be anything good about that.

That's the way to go the way I see it.

And I agree with TRios_Zen, I just wanted to point it out.

The way I see it, the problem is this game is intented to be enjoyed by a partially different audience of Origins.

Don't care about DA series. I just want ME3 have more customization, micromanagement, and exploration than ME2. ME2 isn't bad, it just could have been better if Bioware wasn't trying so hard to appeal to the console shooter fanbase.

While I hear what you are saying also, my problem isn't with the changes that were made to this game, it's with the group think mentality that seems to drive these threads.  That is: Bioware is suddenly pandering to a casual audience so this game stinks and the hardcores are doomed. 

Now did Gamespot say that some steps back were taken in this game?  yes.  Did they lament some design choices as possibly being aimed at a broader market? Again, yes.  But even so they, by thier own grading, have ranked this as a "Great" game.

So let's take a look at the things they seemed to have disliked the most:

1)  The over-simplification of the Inventory system (you don't have full control over your extended parties armor or weapons for example),
2)  The simplified gift-giving, compared to DA:O,
3)  The streamlining of the talent trees (I've seen them though and there is still a lot of depth there),
4)  and finally (and most egregiously) the removal of the "tactical" advantage that PC players have.

So which of these changes was done SPECIFICALLY to attract a different audience to this game do you think?  Or is it possible that these were simply design decisions by the team that have been completly blown out of proportion? Some of these very same design choices (simplified inventory, streamlined talent trees) were implemented in ME2 and that is still a great game.

Having spent two hours in DAII (360 version, Hard difficulty, Male Mage) I can say that if you button mash, you will die (at least early on).  You have to give your party directions or you will lose against the tougher foes.  The talent trees maybe streamlined, but there is much more depth then the ME2 skill trees. AND yes, the armor restrictions (limited to Hawke) does suck, but already I can tell that the writing, the dialogue and the characters all have that Bioware feel to them.

So is DAII, game of the year material?  In my early experience, probably not, but it is fun and I can't wait to get back in it.  More importantly to me though is the underlying question: does EVERY game have to be GOTY material to be fun?  Was Cliff B right when he said our market will not support non-triple A games?  AND if that IS true, then who do we have to blame, when the video game industry collapses under those ridiculous standards, but ourselves?